{ "id": 5284145, "name": "Anna Rakus, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren W. Black, et al. On Appeal of Corrine McKeone, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Rakus v. Black", "decision_date": "1965-02-17", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 49,793", "first_page": "438", "last_page": "442", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "55 Ill. App. 2d 438" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "174 NE2d 883", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ill App2d 409", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5789904 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/30/0409-01" ] }, { "cite": "230 Ill App 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5493542 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/230/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 NE2d 518", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 Ill App2d 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5266965 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/46/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "127 Ill App 265", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2514577 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/127/0265-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ill 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2634908 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "284" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/69/0282-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 NE 275", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 Ill 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 849019 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/239/0494-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 417, "char_count": 6538, "ocr_confidence": 0.495, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0596641334338128e-07, "percentile": 0.5562212314308672 }, "sha256": "2c3ab0e79043ac2ea3c422d8be8a3cfdea901eeb3973cdb3c053a8368e8e02a7", "simhash": "1:0f681fdaa6efa1e2", "word_count": 1154 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:26:46.014264+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "MoCORMICK, P. J. and ENGLISH, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "Anna Rakus, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren W. Black, et al. On Appeal of Corrine McKeone, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE DRUCKER\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendant, Corrine McKeone, appeals from a verdict and judgment of $5,000 in favor of plaintiff who was injured in an automobile collision while a passenger in a car owned by Corrine\u2019s husband, defendant William J. McKeone, and driven by their son, defendant William Craig McKeone. Plaintiff testified that she had been hired to do housework for defendant, Corrine McKeone; that on a Saturday morning she desired to go to her own home to pay rent; that Corrine Mc-Keone told her her son to drive plaintiff and her husband there and to bring them back; that the son did pick them up at 7:00 p. m. and that the accident happened while returning to the defendant\u2019s residence.\nOn Friday, March 13,1964, after the court instructed the jury, the following proceedings were had out of the presence of the jury:\nThe Court: . . . [W]ill yon agree on a sealed verdict?\nMr. Litow [attorney for plaintiff]: Yes, Judge.\nThe Court: That the Jury can return a sealed verdict and agree that they separate and waive the polling of the Jury?\nMr. Bleloch [attorney for defendant]: I will, your Honor.\nMr. Litow: Yes.\nThe Court: Very well. If you want the Bailiff to call you, will you leave your card with the Bailiff? He will call you and tell you the results.\nOn the following Monday, the court was informed that the jury had returned one verdict\u2014a finding against the defendant, Corrine McKeone, and assessing damages at $5,000\u2014and that the verdict forms as to the two other defendants, William J. and William Craig McKeone, had not been executed. Thereupon the court indicated that it would resubmit the case to the jury and ask them to return verdicts, guilty or not guilty, as to the other two defendants. Counsel for all three defendants in the trial court objected on the grounds that:\n. . . the Jury having dispersed and having been out in contact with other people all over the weekend and undoubtedly having had an opportunity to discuss it with many people should not be given the case again in the same manner as it was before.\nPlaintiff\u2019s counsel stated:\nYes. If your Honor please, it would appear from the form of verdict submitted by the Jury, that there is some confusion in the minds of the Jury as to the meaning of the law in this case. And on that theory I would object to the Jury making any reconsideration of this case. They having been dispersed Friday afternoon.\nThe court then observed:\nWell, frankly gentlemen, I am not sure whether the Court has the power or the right to ask the Jury to consider a case further than they already have, but fortunately the Jury is here and as both of you have indicated the Jury was instructed to return three verdicts, one for each defendant (emphasis supplied). ... So, as long as the Jury is here, I will ask them to reconsider and return verdicts for each of the other two defendants.\nThe jury then returned two verdicts: one, finding for defendant, William J. McKeone, and the other finding in favor of plaintiff against William C. Mc-Keone, the minor, and assessing damages as \u201cnothing.\u201d\nDefendant urges that the resubmission to the jury was improper and erroneous; that an unsigned verdict was a finding for the minor defendant; that since the agent (the minor) was not guilty, the plaintiff\u2019s action was barred as to tbe principal (tbe defendant Corrine McKeone); and that, therefore, tbe judgment against ber must be set aside and a finding in ber favor entered here.\nPlaintiff relies on Schmidt v. Chicago City R. Co., 239 Ill 494, 88 NE 275 as authority for resubmission of a case to a jury. However, in that case tbe sealed verdict was returned in open court. Tbe Supreme Court observed that tbe jury could have been polled to determine if there bad been a change in its views. It is interesting to note that tbe court in Schmidt, in answer to tbe argument that it was a joint liability case and should have resubmitted as to both defendants instead of one, held that \u201c[T]he liability was not joint.\u201d\nIn Bond v. Wood, 69 Ill 282, 284, tbe court stated:\nTbe agreement tbe jury may seal their verdict does not dispense with their attendance when tbe verdict is returned into open court. It is a fatal irregularity for tbe judge to discharge tbe jury from further service before they have returned their verdict, unless be has tbe consent of parties, or their counsel, in civil causes. It is tbe right of tbe parties to poll tbe jury, and if they are discharged for tbe term, this privilege is lost. After tbe verdict is received, and tbe jury discharged, tbe control of tbe jury over tbe case is at an end; they can not be recalled to alter or amend tbe verdict. Riggs v. Cook, 4 Gilman, 336.\nSchmidt, supra, also held: \u201cIt [tbe verdict] is within tbe control of tbe jury and may be changed by them until they are discharged.\u201d Since tbe crux of resubmission is tbe discharge of tbe jury, we find that under tbe circumstances of tbe instant ease tbe jury bad been discharged.\nThe failure of the jury to return any verdict as to the minor, William Craig McKeone, is equivalent to a finding of not guilty. Wabash R. Co. v. Keeler, 127 Ill App 265; Henderson v. Lisowski, 46 Ill App2d 81, 196 NE2d 518.\nThe effect of the \u201cnot guilty\u201d finding as to the agent barred any recovery from the principal. In Henderson v. Lisowski, supra, the court quoted with approval from Bunyan v. American Glycerin Co., 230 Ill App 351, at page 354:\nIn this State the law is well settled that where an action on the case is brought against two defendants and one of them is liable only on account of the rule of respondeat superior for the negligence of the other, if the latter is found not guilty such finding is a complete bar to the action against the former.\nSee also Devore v. Toledo, P. & W. Railroad, 30 Ill App2d 409, 174 NE2d 883.\nDefendant urges other grounds for reversal which we need not consider in view of our finding.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and judgment entered in favor of defendant, Corrine Mc-Keone.\nReversed and judgment for defendant.\nMoCORMICK, P. J. and ENGLISH, J., concur.\nReduced by remittitur to $3,250 because of settlement prior to trial with defendants Warren W. Black and Evelyn E. Black in the sum of $1,750.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE DRUCKER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Richard C. Bleloch, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Edward R. Kent and George H. Litow, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Anna Rakus, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren W. Black, et al. On Appeal of Corrine McKeone, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 49,793.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nFebruary 17, 1965.\nRichard C. Bleloch, of Chicago, for appellant.\nEdward R. Kent and George H. Litow, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0438-01", "first_page_order": 466, "last_page_order": 470 }